US Politics: Another Government Shutdown Looms

[Tywin Manderly]

Please continue. :)

[YoungGriff89]

The medicaid expansion is not bad but too many states didn't accept it, and I question why since it is federally funded (meaning to me, you pay whether the state gets it or not) the states even got an option.

Tom Harkin is the one I'm referring to. Maybe a little ambitious to call him anti-Obama. But there's a chance he was just misquoted too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/03/harkin-we-should-have-done-single-payer-health-reform/

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The medicaid expansion is not bad but too many states didn't accept it, and I question why since it is federally funded (meaning to me, you pay whether the state gets it or not) the states even got an option.

Tom Harkin is the one I'm referring to. Maybe a little ambitious to call him anti-Obama. But there's a chance he was just misquoted too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/03/harkin-we-should-have-done-single-payer-health-reform/

But looking back at the early years of the Obama administration, Harkin said Democrats should have pursued “single-payer right from the get-go or at least put a public option. … We had the votes to do that and we blew it."

It's somewhat unclear, but it looks like he's saying they had the votes for the public option. I think, if he is referring to single-payer, he's clearly wrong.

[YoungGriff89]

It's somewhat unclear, but it looks like he's saying they had the votes for the public option. I think, if he is referring to single-payer, he's clearly wrong.

Came across to me as single payer, I think if the democrats got a majority like that again there'd be no question they wouldn't stop until they got single payer instead of a just settling on a public option. They'd be idiots not to. I'm kind of disappointed we didn't get that for the president's last two years.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Came across to me as single payer, I think if the democrats got a majority like that again there'd be no question they wouldn't stop until they got single payer instead of a just settling on a public option. They'd be idiots not to. I'm kind of disappointed we didn't get that for the president's last two years.

And the fact that not even the relatively progressive Democratic House caucus of 2009 could muster majority support (just within the caucus, not the chamber) for single-payer...?

[YoungGriff89]

And the fact that not even the relatively progressive Democratic House caucus of 2009 could muster majority support (just within the caucus, not the chamber) for single-payer...?

And we keep saying both parties aren't same :p of course I actually would love to know why the democrats as a party can't be sold on fixing our healthcare problems and why the average American can't seem to vote for it.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Exactly what made me suspicious of the motives and logic of moving to Canada for lower taxes in the first place: The taxes by and large aren't lower. The labor regulations aren't necessarily less stringent than those in the US.

Name one country in the world you know for a fact would cave to big business interests faster than the United States. Name one westernized country where full time workers live in poverty. I'd say the US has had a little too much checking and balancing.

Once again, and for always, BK did not "move to Canada" for "lower taxes." BK combined with a Canadian business icon (Tim Hortons) for lots and lots of business reasons (my guess is wildly unrelated to Tax). I think you will find that a large proportion of the combined business' revenue, headcount and assets are actually located in Canada. I think you will also find, again, that each entity within the structure will continue to be subject to the regulations of the jurisdictions in which it does business, just as before the transaction. There is some interesting tax stuff going on with BK (in particular the structure being used by 3G, and the instrument being purchased by Buffett), but this isn't like one of the (e.g.) pharma deals where the premium being paid only made sense in the context of tax benefits. As a side note, the big benefits that people were getting weren't necessarily a "lower taxes" (in the headline rate sense) but rather access to "trapped" foreign cash without significant US tax and the ability to erode their tax base in the US through deductible payments.

Separately, I think you would find instructive the history of the recent UK changes in tax rates and tax structure, including how business pressure figures into it.

On paper maybe. And why should the corporations get the protections of the government without paying for them? I have a feeling you're going to go in a "lower the corporate tax rate to 0%" direction.

In a global economy the biggest questions for me surround (1) who should tax (2) what income on (3) what basis. It's actually a difficult and nuanced question. One other thing to note is that there are entities of all sorts in the US that don't pay (at least federal) income tax (and many have limited liability - LPs, LLCs, corporations that have made a subchapter S election). Also these are creatures of state not federal law. Again what and who should pay is a very tricky question of policy. I have my own views (and very strong views about how our federal income tax system should be reformed), but it's not as simplistic as you seem to imply.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

And we keep saying both parties aren't same :P of course I actually would love to know why the democrats as a party can't be sold on fixing our healthcare problems and why the average American can't seem to vote for it.

They're not! One party would have done next to nothing to reform health care.

[YoungGriff89]

Once again, and for always, BK did not "move to Canada" for "lower taxes." BK combined with a Canadian business icon (Tim Hortons) for lots and lots of business reasons (my guess is wildly unrelated to Tax). I think you will find that a large proportion of the combined business' revenue, headcount and assets are actually located in Canada. I think you will also find, again, that each entity within the structure will continue to be subject to the regulations of the jurisdictions in which it does business, just as before the transaction. There is some interesting tax stuff going on with BK (in particular the structure being used by 3G, and the instrument being purchased by Buffett), but this isn't like one of the (e.g.) pharma deals where the premium being paid only made sense in the context of tax benefits. As a side note, the big benefits that people were getting weren't necessarily a "lower taxes" (in the headline rate sense) but rather access to "trapped" foreign cash without significant US tax and the ability to erode their tax base in the US through deductible payments.

Separately, I think you would find instructive the history of the recent UK changes in tax rates and tax structure, including how business pressure figures into it.

In a global economy the biggest questions for me surround (1) who should tax (2) what income on (3) what basis. It's actually a difficult and nuanced question. One other thing to note is that there are entities of all sorts in the US that don't pay (at least federal) income tax (and many have limited liability - LPs, LLCs, corporations that have made a subchapter S election). Also these are creatures of state not federal law. Again what and who should pay is a very tricky question of policy. I have my own views (and very strong views about how our federal income tax system should be reformed), but it's not as simplistic as you seem to imply.

I never implied this was simplistic and I've also understood a little better, the reasoning for the move not being a jump at lower taxes. My first comment about it in the other thread a was sceptical one not a "oh gods, hate Burger King" one. My response was to commodore who implied that a for profit entity should threaten a move out of country for lower taxes to spite the government. Or at least that's how I read him. The concept of not getting a well funded government and the protections of one of you don't pay taxes is pretty simplistic but it is a loaded question when it comes to the how and why I agree.

[YoungGriff89]

They're not! One party would have done next to nothing to reform health care.

The ACA hasn't particularly helped me since I live in Florida so I would say it's the "next to nothing" option but I'll take it over nothing.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The ACA hasn't particularly helped me since I live in Florida so I would say it's the "next to nothing" option but I'll take it over nothing.

This is a perfect example of the differences between the parties. If you had a Democratic Governor and Legislature, your state would have expanded Medicaid and set up its own health insurance exchange instead of engaging in scorched earth opposition to the ACA, as it has.

[YoungGriff89]

This is a perfect example of the differences between the parties. If you had a Democratic Governor and Legislature, your state would have expanded Medicaid and set up its own health insurance exchange instead of engaging in scorched earth opposition to the ACA, as it has.

Actually the exchange portion was done pretty well, it was just no access to subsidies and no medicaid expansion. And basically in Florida if you have a job your income becomes irrelevant and it's much harder to get medicaid.

[Ormond]

of course I actually would love to know why the democrats as a party can't be sold on fixing our healthcare problems and why the average American can't seem to vote for it.

As with any large social phenomenon there is much more than one factor involved here.

But as for the "average American", it seems to me that the majority of individual Americans actually like the health insurance they already have (either through their employer or, if they are over 65, through Medicare) pretty well. Precisely because most of them do know just how expensive health care is in this country (because you see the bills from the doctors and hospitals even when your insurance is going to be paying for it), it's therefore easy for people to get worried that any change from what they have now will make their own health care worse and/or their own out of pocket costs rise. They can easily be scared by those against single-payer options into thinking any change at all is going to end up being bad for them personally.

Way back before Obamacare was passed there was a woman posting in these threads on this board who said she was a Democrat who was strongly opposed to it, or to any single payer system. If I remember correctly (and I'm old and this was years ago, so I may not) one of her main ideas was that if you had a system where no one had to worry about his or her individual health care costs, as a nation full of hypochondriacs this would lead to a huge overuse of the health care system and an astronomical explosion in cost as people would constantly be going to the doctor when they didn't really "need" to. She was somehow sure that any savings resulting from people getting preventative care before they were extremely ill would be swamped by the extra costs of all those hypochondriacs overusing the system.

Those are just two of the many factors here, of course.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Actually the exchange portion was done pretty well, it was just no access to subsidies and no medicaid expansion. And basically in Florida if you have a job your income becomes irrelevant and it's much harder to get medicaid.

Florida used the federal exchange instead of setting up its own. If you can't get subsidies, it's because you fall in the coverage gap caused by Florida Republicans refusing to expand Medicaid to cover you, as the ACA intended.

[YoungGriff89]

As with any large social phenomenon there is much more than one factor involved here.

But as for the "average American", it seems to me that the majority of individual Americans actually like the health insurance they already have (either through their employer or, if they are over 65, through Medicare) pretty well. Precisely because most of them do know just how expensive health care is in this country (because you see the bills from the doctors and hospitals even when your insurance is going to be paying for it), it's therefore easy for people to get worried that any change from what they have now will make their own health care worse and/or their own out of pocket costs rise. They can easily be scared by those against single-payer options into thinking any change at all is going to end up being bad for them personally.

Way back before Obamacare was passed there was a woman posting in these threads on this board who said she was a Democrat who was strongly opposed to it, or to any single payer system. If I remember correctly (and I'm old and this was years ago, so I may not) one of her main ideas was that if you had a system where no one had to worry about his or her individual health care costs, as a nation full of hypochondriacs this would lead to a huge overuse of the health care system and an astronomical explosion in cost as people would constantly be going to the doctor when they didn't really "need" to. She was somehow sure that any savings resulting from people getting preventative care before they were extremely ill would be swamped by the extra costs of all those hypochondriacs overusing the system.

Those are just two of the many factors here, of course.

Ah it's been a while since I've seen the "people will start having injury fetishes" argument. I say as someone who has dealt with two single payer health care systems (Norway and France) in his life, the U.S. system is a borderline criminal joke on humanity. I agree, people oppose single payer here based on lies and propaganda. It disgusts me that the party that fought slavery and inequality has become the torch bearer for the ideals that go against equality in opportunity and a fair shot at the American dream.

[Fez]

Florida used the federal exchange instead of setting up its own. If you can't get subsidies, it's because you fall in the coverage gap caused by Florida Republicans refusing to expand Medicaid to cover you, as the ACA intended.

Or you make more than 400% of the federal poverty level annually, which is around $44,000 for a single person without kids. Even if that's the case though, you still get some benefits from the ACA; like no annual or lifetime limits on coverage, access to 63 preventative services free of charge, etc.

[YoungGriff89]

Florida used the federal exchange instead of setting up its own. If you can't get subsidies, it's because you fall in the coverage gap caused by Florida Republicans refusing to expand Medicaid to cover you, as the ACA intended.

If that was the federal site then I don't see what people were complaining about. I didn't have any problems using it, it was just too expensive. I thought the subsidies and the medicaid expansion were two separate things. If you didn't make more than 138% of the poverty line then you rated Medicaid and if you made less than 400% of the poverty line you qualified for subsidies to offset the cost of private insurance. That's not correct?

[Fez]

If that was the federal site then I don't see what people were complaining about. I didn't have any problems using it, it was just too expensive. I thought the subsidies and the medicaid expansion were two separate things. If you didn't make more than 138% of the poverty line then you rated Medicaid and if you made less than 400% of the poverty line you qualified for subsidies to offset the cost of private insurance. That's not correct?

The Medicaid expansion is 0-138% FPL, the subsidies are 100-400% FPL (except for many categories of legally residing noncitizens who cannot get the Medicaid expansion but qualify from 0-400% FPL for subsidies). If you make between 100-138% you can theoretically pick between Medicaid and the subsidies, but there's no reason to go with the subsidies.

The ACA was written with the Medicaid expansion as a requirement, so everyone up to 400% FPL would have access to coverage. But when the Supreme Court upheld the ACA in 2012, they also held (in a 7-2 vote) that the Medicaid expansion would be optional only, to prevent coercion. In states that chose not to expand Medicaid, of which there are 22 now, people with incomes below 100% FPL have no access to coverage through the ACA; that's the coverage gap.

[YoungGriff89]

Thank you Fez. Concise and to the point. Unrelated note, I just watched a Fox News anchor fail miserably to slam Obama over supporting the spending bill.

"The spending bill that is agreed upon even by the President, it passed the House, it's going to allow Wall Street to gamble with taxpayer money."

On its face the statement isn't funny but he looked conflicted when he said it passed the House (actually originated there) and then he visibly cringed when it came to bashing Wall Street. Ah not like the viewers will notice. I thought it was funny anyway.

To Fox News, I guess it is worth bashing Wall Street and the republicans to take a jab at Obama.

[DanteGabriel]

Thank you Fez. Concise and to the point. Unrelated note, I just watched a Fox News anchor fail miserably to slam Obama over supporting the spending bill.

"The spending bill that is agreed upon even by the President, it passed the House, it's going to allow Wall Street to gamble with taxpayer money."

On its face the statement isn't funny but he looked conflicted when he said it passed the House (actually originated there) and then he visibly cringed when it came to bashing Wall Street. Ah not like the viewers will notice. I thought it was funny anyway.

Was it Shep Smith? He occasionally lets moments of humanity slip through.